Elphage v. Gautreaux
| Citation | 969 F.Supp.2d 493 |
| Decision Date | 03 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 10–358–SDD–RLB. |
| Parties | Veronica ELPHAGE, et al. v. Sid J. GAUTREAUX, In His Capacity As Sheriff Of East Baton Rouge Parish, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jeffrey T. Greenberg, Jeffrey T. Greenberg, APLC, New Orleans, LA, for Veronica Elphage, et al.
Mary G. Erlingson, Tara Lynn Johnston, Erlingson Banks, P.L.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, for Sid J. Gautreaux, in his Capacity as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish, et al.
RULING
The Court has carefully considered the petition, the record, the law applicable to this action, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. dated August 9, 2013. Defendants have filed an objection which the court has considered.
The Court hereby approves the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and adopts it as the Court's opinion herein.
Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgement (Rec. Doc. 16) is granted in part dismissing with prejudice, Plaintiff's federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and the Plaintiff's state law claims for assault, battery, negligence, false arrest, false imprisonment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Summary judgement with regard to the Plaintiff's federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and 42 U.S.C. § 1986 are denied as insufficiently briefed.
This matter is before the court on a referral from the district court of the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.1 The motion is opposed. 2 The defendants' motion seeks dismissal of all of the plaintiffs' claims, which include claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as various state tort claims.
The following facts are uncontested unless otherwise noted. On the night of May 10, 2009, East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office deputies responded to a dispatch concerning the firing of firearms on or near Skysail Avenue in Baton Rouge. Deputy George O'Connor, Jr. of the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office Canine Division initially responded to assist in crowd control at the Skysail location. After a few minutes, another deputy reported to him that two suspects were potentially fleeing the area and were seen on Helm Drive, which is in close proximity to Skysail.
The events forming the basis of this suit unfolded at Helm Drive. At least two of the plaintiffs—Cardell White, Sr. and Veronica Elphage—were attending a Mother's Day party on Helm Drive. After the party, Mr. White was helping move items from the party to Ms. Elphage's home. As he was walking back to the house on Helm Drive where the party was located, Mr. White and another suspect, Christopher Kelly,3 were detained by deputies who had arrived at the location. Deputy James Gehling 4 placed Mr. White in handcuffs and put him in the back of a police vehicle.
While the deputies were detaining Mr. White and Mr. Kelly, a group of 15–20 people gathered at Helm Drive. Deputy O'Connor arrived with his canine and formed a barrier between the crowd and the deputies detaining the two suspects. The deputies warned the crowd that they would use pepper spray if they did not “get back.” Deputy Brian Farrell 5 administered a one-second burst of chemical control spray in a “Z” pattern and sprayed the crowd. Deputy O'Connor testified in his deposition that he did not deploy his spray and did not witness any other deputy spray the crowd. The plaintiffs contest this testimony and contend that other deputies sprayed the crowd. The plaintiffs, however, do not specifically identify Deputy O'Connor as one of the additional deputies who allegedly used pepper spray.
Ms. Elphage also arrived at the scene on Helm Drive while Mr. White and Mr. Kelly were being detained. According to the defendants, Ms. Elphage was “screaming and yelling” at the deputies and “refused to relent” when Deputy O'Connor told her to get back. The plaintiffs dispute the defendants' characterization of Ms. Elphage's behavior. Ms. Elphage was placed under arrest by Deputy O'Connor and Deputy Gehling for public intimidation, resisting arrest by force, and simple assault.
Neither Ms. Elphage nor Mr. White was sprayed with pepper spray. The parties agree, however, that Ms. Elphage felt a minor burning sensation on her legs and chest for approximately fifteen minutes. The only damages suffered by Mr. White were minor scrapes and a temporary “ring” around his wrists from the handcuffs used to detain him. He did not feel any of the effects from the pepper spray. Furthermore, Deputy Farrell testified at his deposition that the deputies called EMS to the scene after the use of pepper spray, EMS examined the people in the crowd, and EMS stated that no baby was sprayed and no person was experiencing breathing problems. The plaintiffs contest this testimony on the ground that it was provided by Deputy Farrell and not EMS, but the plaintiffs do not reference any testimony from other witnesses contradicting Deputy Farrell's statements.
The plaintiffs also claim that Ms. Elphage captured the events that made the basis of this litigation on film but her camera was confiscated during her arrest and returned to her without the memory card.6
On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs brought an action in state court alleging causes of action including civil rights violations and state law tort claims against Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux, in his official capacity as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish, Deputy O'Connor, both individually and in his official capacity, and several unnamed John Doe deputies in both their individual and official capacities.7 The John Doe deputies have been dismissed from the suit without prejudice.8 There are nine plaintiffs of majority who have brought claims individually and on the behalf of ten minors. The federal claims alleged by plaintiffs are violations of “ 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, as well as the Fourth, Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” 9 The state law claims alleged by the plaintiffs include violations of “ Louisiana Civil Code Articles 2315, 2315.6 and 2316, through the commission of negligence, assault, battery, and the negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.” 10 Rather than address their causes of actions through counts, the plaintiffs provide generalized lists of allegedly “negligent, intentional, and otherwise culpable acts” by the defendants.11 The plaintiffs seek to recover, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. The defendants timely removed this action based on federal question jurisdiction.12
The plaintiffs allege in the petition that the charges brought against Ms. Elphage “were never accepted or pursued by the District Attorney.” 13 The plaintiffs do not now dispute, however, that after they filed their action Ms. Elphage was prosecuted by the District Attorney, entered into a pretrial diversion program, and the charges against Ms. Elphage were dismissed only upon her completion of the pretrial diversion program. 14 On or about March 28, 2011, the District Attorney filed a Bill of Information filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, documenting that Ms. Elphage was charged with resisting an officer (La. R.S. § 14:108) and simple assault ( La. R.S. § 14:38).15 On May 12, 2011, this action was ordered stayed pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against Ms. Elphage. 16 The Plaintiffs then filed an unopposed motion to lift the stay, 17 attaching an extract of criminal court minutes stating that Ms. Elphage had “completed PTI” on September 26, 2011.18 The court takes judicial notice that “PTI” is an acronym for the pretrial intervention program of the Office of the District Attorney for the Nineteenth Judicial District, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. On October 19, 2011, the court ordered the stay lifted.19
The defendants advance several arguments in support of their position that the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed. First, the defendants argue that both Sheriff Gautreaux and Deputy O'Connor are protected from claims brought against them based on qualified immunity. The defendants claim that Sheriff Gautreaux is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable person could have believed the deputies at issue were sufficiently trained and supervised in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed. With regard to Deputy O'Connor, the defendants claim that he is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable person could have believed that he acted reasonably in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed. Second, the defendants argue that the claims brought against Sheriff Gautreaux and Deputy O'Connor in their official capacities must be treated like claims for municipal liability. These claims must fail, the defendants argue, because the plaintiffs do not identify an official policy or custom in the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's Office that caused the deprivation of any of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Third, the defendants argue that Sheriff Gautreaux is not subject to supervisory liability for the acts of his deputies because the plaintiffs have not provided sufficient evidence regarding the Sheriff's failure to train or his deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Finally, the defendants address the individual causes of action raised by the plaintiffs, including both allegations of constitutional violations and state law liability. In addressing Ms. Elphage's claim for false arrest, the Defendants argue...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lefebure v. Boeker
...S.Ct. 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997).78 Jones v. St. Tammany Parish Jail , 4 F.Supp.2d 606, 610 (E.D. La. 1998) ; Elphage v. Gautreaux , 969 F.Supp.2d 493, 501 (M.D. La. 2013).79 Griffith v. Johnston , 899 F.2d 1427, 1436 (5th Cir. 1990).80 Woods v. Edwards , 51 F.3d 577, 583 (5th Cir. 1995).......
-
Tutrix ex rel. DCJH v. Travis
...Circuit has stated that "Louisiana's excessive force tort mirrors its federal constitutional counterpart." Elphage v. Gautreaux , 969 F. Supp. 2d 493, 515–16 (M.D. La. 2013) (citing Deville v. Marcantel , 567 F.3d 156, 172–73 (5th Cir. 2009) ). "Under Louisiana law, the torts of assault and......
-
Waldron v. Lancaster Cnty. Deputy Sheriff James Roark, S-16-676.
...980 F.2d 850 (2d Cir. 1992) ; Cabot v. Lewis, 241 F.Supp.3d 239 (D. Mass. 2017) (contrasting competing rationales); Elphage v. Gautreaux, 969 F.Supp.2d 493 (M.D. La. 2013).1 See, generally, Claire L. Hillan, The Not-So-Clearly Established Qualified Immunity Doctrine, The Nebraska Lawyer, Ma......
-
Garig v. Travis
...considers voluntary participation in a pretrial diversion program to be a "conviction" for purposes of Heck. See Elphage v. Gautreaux, 969 F. Supp. 2d 493, 506 (M.D. La. 2013) ("The Fifth Circuit has joined the Third and Second Circuits in treating pretrial intervention programs as convicti......